nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) (10/23/89)
In article <SJA.89Oct21175221@sirius.hut.fi>, sja@sirius (Sakari Jalovaara) writes: >I could be wrong. Then again, I feel I belong in both of these >groups: users and potential contributors. I would feel like I was >wasting my time if I wrote a program and then heard that someone can't >use it because he doesn't agree with my or someone else's political >views. This is a very interesting viewpoint of Sakari's; however, I don't share it with him. If I wrote a program and found out that someone else wasn't using it because she didn't agree with my political views, that wouldn't make me wish that I hadn't written the software. Also, Sakari's use of the word "can't", above, is a tad strong; it's not that they *can't* use it, it's simply that they choose not to. Their choice does not alter my or anyone else's ability to use the software. --woodstock -- "What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking and thinking...and suddenly you wake up." - Hobbes woodstock@hobbes.intel.com ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!nate
schmidt@glacier.ics.uci.edu (Doug Schmidt) (10/23/89)
In article <1130@mipos3.intel.com>, nate@hobbes (Nate Hess) writes: >Also, Sakari's use of the word "can't", above, is a tad strong; it's not >that they *can't* use it, it's simply that they choose not to. Their >choice does not alter my or anyone else's ability to use the software. That's a very good point. I've also found from experience that many people make their `choice' based upon incorrect assumptions and flawed preconceptions. For example, immediately after releasing my gperf perfect hash function program on comp.sources.unix I received a massive flame from a person who basically said: `Shame on you for copylefting your code, since this means that no one will ever use it since their source will fall under the copyleft too.' Unfortunately, when shooting from the hip, this person failed to notice that the *output* from gperf (which is the useful part) is *not* copylefted. This means that anyone can use the generated perfect hash function in a proprietary program, charge $5,000,000 dollars for it, hoard the source (to their program), and there's no problem, legal, moral, or otherwise. When I pointed this out to the person he then said: `Oh sorry, you're right, but I was confused because GNU puts their copyleft in generated FLEX code, so I just assumed... etc.' Once again, complete nonsense masquerading as gospel (FLEX is actually copyrighted by The Regents of the University of California, and is only distributed by FSF, i.e., the FSF does not copyleft either the source code or the generated scanners). My point here is that many people are who think they *can't* use various GNU tools for fear of copyleft infringement are just choosing not to understand the issues. Doug -- Master Swordsman speak of humility; | schmidt@ics.uci.edu (ARPA) Philosophers speak of truth; | office: (714) 856-4034 Saints and wisemen speak of the Tao of no doubt; The moon, sun, and sea speaks for itself. -- Hiroshi Hamada
ccplumb@rose.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb) (10/24/89)
In article <1989Oct23.082748.24704@paris.ics.uci.edu> schmidt@glacier.ics.uci.edu (Doug Schmidt) writes: > My point here is that many people are who think they *can't* use various > GNU tools for fear of copyleft infringement are just choosing not to > understand the issues. I, too, have a hard time understanding all the fuss. FSF code is great! It's there, it does useful things, I can get it, I can hack it, and I can give it to my friends. All the FSF asks is that I distribute source with my hacks. No complaints; it's not all that onerous, and I can tell people to go fix it themselves if they have a problem I don't want to work on for some reason. There's a lot of legalese to add recursion to the thing (maybe I should compare the GPL to the Y combinator?), but that's basically all there is to the General Public Licence: If you distribute your hacks, distribute source with changes noted. GCC seems to be achieving significant "commercial" success. NeXT and Data General are shipping derivatives as "the" compiler, and Intel and others distribute their versions. I think this is because the energy required to write a compiler or port another is sufficient to make people hesitate and see that the GPL isn't terribly arduous. With other utilities, there are lots of commercial alternatives the timid but rich can stick with out of fear this legal obligation to distribute source will somehow bite them worse than an obligation not to. I neglect to set read perms on my FSF-derived source? Oops. I'll fix that in future. I neglect to remove read perms from AT&T source? Oops. An army of suits just showed up at my front door quoting numbers of 7 digits and up. Anyway, hopefully the experience with GCC will assuage people's fears and they'll start using other FSF products for simpler reasons like "they're faster." -- -Colin